I would like:

1) My tuition paid for by the rich in Wall Street. After all, I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an "Ivy League" education to get a horrible job and stay, well, not rich.

2) My car paid for by the rich in Wall Street. After all, it was their bailouts that forced me to get this sweet ride that I couldn't afford.

3) My house paid for by the rich in Wall Street. While it may have been Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who threatened banks with embarrassing accusations regarding equal rights being violated if they didn't offer me a subprime mortgage on a $500,000 house (when I could only afford a $150,000 one), it was the bank's fault for making me sign the mortgage contract.

4) Some of dat Obama Money.

10/18/2011 8:02:44 PM

Maybe you could start with

1) a fucking brain
2) an education

/thread

[Edited on October 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM. Reason : Get the fuck out of here you fucking sissy.]

10/18/2011 8:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Obamaclause"

10/18/2011 8:20:42 PM

Hey McDanger, tell us why you had to edit your post.

10/18/2011 8:31:32 PM

And, for your 2), see my 1).

Look, I can ask, can't I?

10/18/2011 8:32:10 PM

Where'd you go to college and why are you posting on an NC State message board?

10/18/2011 8:35:56 PM

you went to an ivy league school?

10/18/2011 8:36:05 PM

http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

10/18/2011 8:38:30 PM

Facepalms abound in every directiOn

10/18/2011 8:39:21 PM

It started out metaphorical but apparently it turned personal

10/18/2011 8:42:37 PM

Oh crap, TheDuke is in my thread.

Standby for the lock.

Yeah...none of that is rhetorical.

The OWSers want that, and I've heard women say it.

It got personal as soon as McWit was offended at the audacity of highlighting the ignorant ppl at OWS.

But hey at least there aren't large pictures in here.

10/18/2011 9:45:25 PM

McDanger, I am offended by your use of the term "sissy" in a demeaning manner

10/18/2011 9:50:38 PM

Quote :

"Hey McDanger, tell us why you had to edit your post."

because i drink early in the evening and press post reply! excitedly before i'm done

Quote :

"McDanger, I am offended by your use of the term "sissy" in a demeaning manner"

i don't really mean it mayne, i just go out on a limb because i know it cuts deep with pussies like him

10/18/2011 11:14:25 PM

Reel deap

10/18/2011 11:38:01 PM

Quote :

"kdogg(c) All American 1025 Posts user info edit post I would like: 1) My cock sucked by a twink 2)"

10/18/2011 11:40:08 PM

Quote :

"Well, I can't argue the facts, so I will resort to name-calling! BRILLIANT!!!"

10/18/2011 11:54:51 PM

THE FACTS

10/18/2011 11:58:16 PM

Quote :

"Oh crap, TheDuke is in my thread. Standby for the lock."

I lock your threads because they're garbage. If anything, I ought to lock more threads.

10/19/2011 12:04:44 AM

1) cheaper gasoline (and more domestic drilling)
2) do away with ethanol subsidies and required ethanol content in gasoline (this relates to #1 and will also reduce the cost of many food items)
3) cheaper beer

10/19/2011 9:02:53 AM

this isn't locked?

10/19/2011 11:32:40 AM

Quote :

"Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they're successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand. Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase – "supply side economics" – and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow. At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up! Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness. Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush – like most Republicans of the time – was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression. "

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

10/19/2011 12:13:21 PM

^thanks for the nonstop text bombing and image bombing.

otherwise i have no idea how i would have been able to read that article. wait there must be some clicking mechanism to take me to the link to read myself in here somewhere.

10/19/2011 2:44:17 PM

you're welcome

10/19/2011 7:52:41 PM

Quote :

"thanks for the nonstop text bombing and image bombing."

Isn't there some idiom that fits this situation? Something about a pot and a kettle...?

10/19/2011 9:35:14 PM

wait, so why is this one still open?

Can we just make it the "kdogg and pryderi posts dumb talk radio shit here" thread?

10/20/2011 8:58:59 AM

Quote :

"Can we just make it the "kdogg and pryderi posts dumb talk radio shit here" thread? "

You could, but any thread associated with me would just get locked by theduke866.

10/20/2011 2:46:47 PM

Quote :

"You could, but any thread associated with me would just get locked by theduke866."

[in shock]

Something we agree on.

[/shock]

10/20/2011 3:43:00 PM